MAHAMAYA MINERALS SAKTI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern disposal of aforesaid writ petitions, as in all the writ petitions, common issue arises for consideration based on similar fact. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have been granted license/permit for storage of coal under the provisions of C.G. Minerals (Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2009 (for short "the Rules of 2009"). Each of the petitioners, desirous of opening, establishing and running coal storage depot to facilitate transportation of coal after mining and removal from mining area, applied to the competent authority of the mining department for grant of license for coal storage. The application of each of the petitioners in aforesaid cases was considered and the Mining Officer in the office of the Collector granted license in prescribed Form 7, referable to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2009. For ready reference, the details of the date of issuance of storage licenses and the period of such license in respect of each of the petitioners is indicated below - -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions raised common submission that the action of the respondents, cancelling license, is illegal, arbitrary and to serious prejudice of the petitioners who were granted license for coal storage without any suppression of fact. It is contended that while applying for grant of license in each of the cases, the land offered by each of the petitioners and its location, distance from the coal mines was fully within the notice and knowledge of the licensing authority. Further contention is that in none of the cases, there is any allegation that the petitioners falsely stated regarding the actual distance of the land where coal storage was to be established and it is not the case of the respondent authorities that the coal storage depot established and run under the license, it situated at a distance less than 25 kms. from the mining area. According to them, provisions contained in Rule 15(5) of the Rules of 2009 were understood by the respondent authorities to mean road distance and not aerial distance. Therefore, in these circumstances, the respondent authorities are estopped from cancelling license on the ground that the distance should have been measured on aerial basis and not the road distance. It is also contended that it was for the licensing authority, at the time of considering the application for grant of license, to clarify this aspect but the authority itself was of the view that it is the road distance, which has to be taken into consideration to find out whether coal storage depot is situated within the prohibited limits or not. Therefore, now, the authority cannot turn around and cancel, license and thereby affect petitioners' business of coal storage.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that in all the cases, petitioners had applied for grant of statutory license to permit them to operate and run coal storage depot and the competent authority, after consideration of those applications, decided to grant license to these petitioners for the period indicated in their respective licenses. It is also not the case of the respondent authorities that while obtaining license, any of the petitioners misrepresented the authorities by incorrectly stating the distance of the coal depot.